Summer Weather Is Getting 'Stuck' Due To Arctic Warming (theguardian.com) 387
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Summer weather patterns are increasingly likely to stall in Europe, North America and parts of Asia, according to a new climate study that explains why Arctic warming is making heatwaves elsewhere more persistent and dangerous. Rising temperatures in the Arctic have slowed the circulation of the jet stream and other giant planetary winds, says the paper, which means high and low pressure fronts are getting stuck and weather is less able to moderate itself. The authors of the research, published in Nature Communications on Monday, warn this could lead to "very extreme extremes," which occur when abnormally high temperatures linger for an unusually prolonged period, turning sunny days into heat waves, tinder-dry conditions into wildfires, and rains into floods.
One cause is a weakening of the temperature gradient between the Arctic and Equator as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The far north of the Earth is warming two to four times faster than the global average, says the paper, which means there is a declining temperature gap with the central belt of the planet. As this ramp flattens, winds struggle to build up sufficient energy and speed to push around pressure systems in the area between them. As a result, there is less relief in the form of mild and wet air from the sea when temperatures accumulate on land, and less relief from the land when storms build up in the ocean.
One cause is a weakening of the temperature gradient between the Arctic and Equator as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The far north of the Earth is warming two to four times faster than the global average, says the paper, which means there is a declining temperature gap with the central belt of the planet. As this ramp flattens, winds struggle to build up sufficient energy and speed to push around pressure systems in the area between them. As a result, there is less relief in the form of mild and wet air from the sea when temperatures accumulate on land, and less relief from the land when storms build up in the ocean.
Summer? What Summer? (Score:2, Informative)
I live in South Carolina. We did not have a Summer this year.
And..? (Score:2)
"...As this ramp flattens, winds struggle to build up sufficient energy and speed to push around pressure systems in the area between them. As a result, there is less relief in the form of mild and wet air from the sea when temperatures accumulate on land, and less relief from the land when storms build up in the ocean...."
Which just means that the differences between continental and maritime wind patterns will be that much stronger which meaning the gradient will be less about N/S coriolis patterns and mor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which means they have data to back it up. They may be wrong, of course, in which case their assertions will be disproved -- which is the thing that distinguishes the scientific consensus from religious opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have 2 dogma, please!
Re: And..? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is with you today?
Re: And..? (Score:2)
Re: And..? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course interpretation can be incorrect. That's a big reason we have peer review, and precisely why consensus is important.
Re: And..? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I to take this as you saying you don't think massive-scale alteration of the Earth's extant carbon cycle will cause this planet to warm?
Re: And..? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Massive scale? The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent.
Yes, the composition of the atmosphere, which has a mass of 5.15*10^18 has only changed a small amount.
Are you really too stupid to understand that it requires a "massive scale" to enact a measurable change to something that large?
The overall change in composition has been very small, my dear Oregonian. What do you think, very very small changes in the composition of the atmosphere are going to destroy humanity?
An interesting question!
Let's imagine I placed you in a completely thermally insulated glass house with a light shining on it at about 320W/m^2 worth of power.
Let's imagine you had a little hole at the top of it with a fan blowing air out, and a little hole allowing for air to
Re: (Score:2)
Now, do I even know how to calculate the amount of warming we'll get with a doubling of CO2?
Fuck no- nobody does. That's the problem you assholes are pinning your entire argument on. The pure increase in temperature caused solely by the CO2? Yes, that's quite easy to calculate. All of the other feedbacks are n
Re: And..? (Score:5, Insightful)
The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent.
Imagine we separate the atmosphere in different layers of pure gases. The pre-industrial amount of CO2 would then be equivalent to about 3 feet thick layer of pure CO2. The current layer of CO2 would be about 4 feet.
The fact that this layer of CO2 is very thin compared to the much bigger amounts of nitrogen and oxygen is irrelevant. Nitrogen and oxygen don't block IR.
Re: (Score:2)
Please do humanity a favor and kill yourself.
Re: And..? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To quote this asshole [slashdot.org],
What a genius he is.
considering (Score:2, Troll)
Considering how many people in the US believes science is fake, how about setting up a lot of very large fans and tell people they will be used to circulate air and it will slowly help eliminate the heat waves.
But remember keep the real use of the very large fans secret
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be an ignorant fuckwit in order to have even an iota of certainty about it occurring due to anthropogenic carbon cycle short circuiting.
I don't give a shit about the models, the predictions, or any of that shit. That's the job for the guys trying to determine how quickly we'll kill ourselves. The fact that we are should be completely without question.
We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of y
Re: (Score:2)
s/flash/flesh/;
And again, fuck you very much.
Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake (Score:5, Informative)
Volcanos would like to have a word with you outside sir....
Horse shit, they would.
Volcanoes eject about 200 million tons of CO2 from the crust annually, human fossil emissions are about 24 billion. They're not even the same fucking sport. Quit lying.
Last word? If your argument relies on your being full of shit to make sense, that makes you a fuckwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the Pinatubo eruption? Wasn't that long ago, back just in the early 90's. I remember it well. Most of the summer was 14-18C(normal highs are 22-31C), and all it did was rain or be overcast. Millions of dollars in crops were destroyed or lost, tens of thousands of farmers went under. That was just in my little neck of the woods in southern ontario. I mean I remember it getting so cold we had to break out comforters at night in July and August, 4-8C at night. Hell there were still parts of the
Re: (Score:2)
17Mt of sulfur dioxide is a great example of how even small changes in atmospheric composition that affect radiation flux, spread across the entire globe can effect radical shifts in climate.
Fortunately, SO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere all that long.
I think I missed the point you were trying to make, though?
Re: (Score:2)
Only a moron or a religious fanatic would think that science is crap. Everything you have or want has been or will be produced as a direct result of science- not prayer.
Now they say "maybe we better slow down" and suddenly they're all idiots or part of some vast conspiracy to benefit whom?
Re: (Score:2)
Your link is about medical science, not climate science. Anthropogenic climate change has been confirmed and re-confirmed by dozens of independent lines of evidence, by thousands of peer-reviewed papers from thousands of climatologists from all over the world, for decades.
how can you not assume a lot of scientists are faking things
Uh huh. The vast majority of climatologists are all faking their results in a massive global conspiracy, risking their integrity, reputations, jobs, and careers, just so they can keep collecting a middling wage for studying a subject that
Again, another statement of the problem. (Score:2)
Instead of bringing up the problem again and again I'd like to see more discussions on solutions.
I like hydro, nuclear, and wind as solutions. Those seem to come out on top on every selection parameter I could come up with.
I'm also a fan of the Pickens Plan.
http://pickensplan.com/the-pla... [pickensplan.com]
That plan is to use as much natural gas to replace imported oil as we can while we develop alternatives.
Beneficiaries of Longer Summers (Score:2)
Too many people, and particularly the Media, tend to focus on the negatives of global warming and climate change. Just as there are losers there are also winners and the longer summers are very beneficial in the northern areas. We're getting longer growing seasons. Our winters are more temperate although still deep snows. The news is good.
Re: (Score:3)
And here i was, with all the doors and windows sealed, trying to not to be asphyxiated by half the continent being on fire, when I should have been thinking, "Hey, my strawberries did do better than ever this year!"
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that German farmers, who made a billion loss this year due to droughts ... ...)
(Google the other European countries, I'm to lazy to do your work
Re: (Score:2)
Weather is not climate.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but if you change the climate, you change the weather.
I call BS. (Score:2)
Everyone knows global warming is a hoax made up by the Chinese. The President said so.
Could Be Good News (Score:2)
I wonder if this means that we will be able to have longer pot growing seasons with bigger yields here at 45 degrees north...
Every time the topic surfaces on /.... (Score:2)
You know what? I don't even have to read the funny pages anymore. Just launch a story about climate change on Slashdot, grab a bag of popcorn, lean back and enjoy. It's hilarious. Well, it would be, if it wasn't so terribly sad.
And yes, I'm beyond caring. I tried to care. I really did. But I simply don't anymore. I have no kids. And the planet will stay habitable for the maybe 20 years I have left. Why should I care about this ball being habitable for you or your kids if even you can't be assed to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I live in Norway. (Score:5, Insightful)
You really sure you wanna ring that bell? Because when Norway is 30C all year round, that means that a good portion of the planet is going to be uninhabitable. So there will be billions of people, many of them with guns, who will come for their piece of Norway. And you can't stop them all, especially if the famous winter slog that caused the Russians so much trouble before isn't there any more. Some people think Scandanavia has african migrant problems now, if what you wish for comes to pass there'll be several hundred million migrants coming your way...
Re: I live in Norway. (Score:2, Troll)
Re:I live in Norway. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is it won't be 30C year round. It'll be 40C in the summer and -20C in the winter and the variations will be erratic and unpredictable. Summer will start in January one year and July the next, it'll rain all year long one year and then won't rain again for two more. The worst kind of situation imaginable for food production.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is going to move to Chicago?
If it gets that bad, Chicagoans are going to move to Norway. And they'll be bringing their pianos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Won't do any good. It got 98F in Ontario this month and the pussies started dropping like flies. As in died. 98 is a LOW temp where I live. Come back when you enjoy a nice 121F in the shade, weaklings.
The weaklings can't handle our weather is a common misconception, whether it's being told in January in the Upper Peninsula or in July in El Paso.
Human bodies have a remarkable ability to acclimate to the weather where they find themselves. If it seems odd to folks living in West Texas that folks perish in northern cities during heat waves of 98F/37C, try to remember that shoveling the Newport, Vt snow in freezing winter conditions would doom many fresh off the plane from Southern Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
And temperatures alone does not mean anything. Add humidity to the mix, and a dry 30C will be nice in the shade while a humid 25C will feel like hell even in the shade.
Re: (Score:2)
And we'll see more and more places with humid 30+ C.
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy the view while it lasts. In a couple of years your plains will be flooded with refugees trying to escape the southern parts that have temperatures above 100 in Winter and becomes uninhabitable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: LMAO, more fake man made global warming news (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This has fuck all to do with the topic. What did you do, open the Bible on some random page and quote it?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.
I bet you can't even name 200.
Challenge accepted.
Continued from previous post. Slashdot's filter is racist.
So racist it's blocking even an additional list of ten names. So have a fucking Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org] instead. There's more than 200 in the Hindu pantheon alone, nevermind the ancient Egyptian pantheon, Norse pantheon, Roman and Greek pantheons, Mayan pantheon, not to mention the DC and Marvel pantheons.
The list of 200 would have had more impact... Fucking filters. My karma is Excellent, assholes. I should be exempt.
Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from most of the people I've met so far in my life, I have to deduce that God is an asshole.
Trivial solution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have all nations drop their emissions together.
I agree, but that's not a "how". That's not an engineering plan.
We need to get to the levels of Denmark and Finland .
Okay, let's look at how Finland does it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They get 25% of their electricity from nuclear, 20% from hydro, and... 22% imported? That doesn't sound like a plan. That's just exporting your emissions.
Let's look at Denmark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind. Not a bad plan in my opinion. Though I would like to see them adopt some nuclear power like Finland. Natural g
Re: (Score:2)
And Québec and Ontario.
Re:Trivial solution (Score:5, Informative)
Your reading and other comprehension skills baffle me ...
You show us a link about Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And then you claim, they generate their electricity They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind.
Could you have the dignity to READ your links? And comprehend them?
Denmark produced 2014 47% of its energy by wind, solar and hydro. 7% not 75%, by gas.
There is a nice table at 25% of the page, just scroll there.
I don't bother to debunk your other links ... no idea what your secret agenda is. So far everything you posted about nuclear energy, solar and anything related to power was basically wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Your reading and other comprehension skills baffle me ...
Your desire to follow me around and "correct" me is baffling.
You show us a link about Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]...
And then you claim, they generate their electricity They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind.
Could you have the dignity to READ your links? And comprehend them?
Denmark produced 2014 47% of its energy by wind, solar and hydro. 7% not 75%, by gas.
Yep, I confused the installed capacity with production, so sue me. Here's another site I was able to find with more recent data.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]
They show about half the electricity from "thermal" (fossil fuels in various forms), and about half from wind.
I don't bother to debunk your other links ... no idea what your secret agenda is.
I have no "secret agenda", I thought I was quite clear on my agenda. I want to see solutions rather than just complaints on the problem. Solar is not a solution, it can be part
Re:Trivial solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Solar is not a solution, it can be part of the solution but it is not a solution on it's own. Hydro, nuclear, and wind are solutions. The main part is that hydro, nuclear, and wind must ALL be included in the solution. Without all three the solution falls apart.
Oh, and natural gas. It's going to be difficult to go all hydro, nuclear, and wind at once. Until that happens we should use lots of natural gas to get off of coal and oil.
hi
from all that what stands out for me is the criticism of solar electricity generation.
Some of the stats you have there for ROI are US-based, while the "ideal" mix is based on experience from countries in the north of Europe. I think we probably will have different optimal solutions and varying ROI depending on the place. Logistics, availability of capital, sun hours per day and quality of the distribution grid will be important factors, and the availability of historical data for alternative energy is also skewed by early adoption in wealthier countries.
In short: I wouldn't dismiss photovoltaic just because hydro/nuclear/wind have better historical better performance.
Once different countries get serious about phasing out fossil fuel, some will have local advantages in using solar vs wind, or will not have the capital for nuclear, or will prefer not to convert to gas altogether. YMMV.
(PS: I like solar)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, actually, it IS an engineering plan. The plan is how to determine all CO2 levels, normalize if, and then to get all nations to address their OWN CO2 sources.
In particular, the solutions needed for America are NOT the same as what Denmark or Finland used. That is why I said that we needed to get down to THEIR LEVELS. I never said that we need to be like them. Denmark does not measure their levels. I suspect that they will turn out to have much high
Re: (Score:3)
Nice to see somebody sincere and not just a troll here.
Thanks.
Ok, I think that you looked at this all wrong. You simply looked at our electricity and nothing else. Instead, lets look at where CO2 comes from. Electricity USED to be our main source. Now, it and Transportation are tied.
Well, if electric cars are the future, which seems to be a popular claim, then this will be a self correcting problem if we fix the CO2 from electricity. No?
So, IOW, Transportation will take care of itself, assuming Tesla does not die.
Seems you agree with me. I'm not so sure Tesla will be the solution, they are still a luxury car maker. We'll need to see electric cars on every price level. Out here in snowy suburbia we'll need light trucks, SUVs, or whatever else that handles snow well. Not everyone can wait for the snow plows, and some of use need to carry tools and gear
Entitled much? (Score:2)
It's clear who's causing the problems [worldbank.org] America. Last time you said Sweden and Switzerland were your targets so I showed you them too. Which countries are all clustered together down the bottom? Which country is double the other countries?
You first Windy. Drop your levels down to anywhere near those other countries and you won't just look like a whiny douche blaming everyone else for the problems you caused.
Re:Entitled much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting graph, especially the slopes on those lines. China's CO2 output has been climbing, quite rapidly too. For USA it's been pretty steady, even dropping slightly. The CO2 output per capita in the USA is the same now as it was in the 1960s, and down about 20% from the 1970s. Shouldn't we get a little credit for that?
I'd like to see the CO2 output go down in the USA. Judging from what I've picked up over the years there will not be a significant drop until we build more nuclear power. We've damned up all the rivers worth a dam for hydro, so we can't grow much there. Windmills are popping up like dandelions, that's good. What we need now to balance this out and really put a knife in the heart of coal, the biggest CO2 emitter of them all, is more nuclear power.
I've read some encouraging news recently. Seems like the powers that be are now taking nuclear power seriously. I suspect a lot of nuclear power plants breaking ground in the next five or ten years. Unfortunately most of that is just to make up for the nuclear power we'd be shutting down. We'll see growth in nuclear power yet, then we can see the CO2 per capita drop.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I give credit where it is due. America could be far worse, and was in the past. All countries seem to follow the same trajectory of increasing CO2 as they develop and become rich, and then level off and then decrease when they can afford it. Obviously America is past the hump and is in the decreasing phase. China is likely at the top or close to it and will decrease as well. The thing to notice, is that China will peak at a much lower level than America did.
I only have a problem with entitled people l
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get to the levels of Denmark and Finland
Actually, we need to get to zero emissions, otherwise the problem will continue to get worse.
Re:Trivial solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you can lead the way. Switch off your computer and never turn it on again
You can't solve the Tragedy of the Commons by personal actions.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Per GDP is about the worst possible measure.
You like to praise America for heading in the right direction, and blame China for the wrong direction. But if you did measure against GDP China would be getting better much faster than America is. China is going in the right direction faster than America is. Why aren't you arguing China is cleaner than America? OOPS.
You keep telling us you care about the direction and not the level, which is stupid. Because China is growing at 6+% every year. According to your
Re: (Score:2)
China IS heading in the right direction.
Not sure it's enough to make up for the decades it spent destroying the environment DELIBERATELY to corner various markets.
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of ENGINEERING is going to help someone who thinks "We should do like what Denmark and Finland are doing" is too "ABSTRACT".
Re: (Score:2)
No. An engineering solution is a plan that's a great deal more information-dense than "Cut emissions".
It's real easy to spout off buzzwords and ACT like there's a plan.
It's a great deal tougher to actually map something out properly. In a step-by-step manner, with technical justifications, ground-level views and high-level views.
If you think "Cut emissions" is an engineering solution, you are probably one of those "software engineers" who thinks that code comments are solely for making jokes and saying "d
Re: (Score:3)
However, what they can NOT lie or manipulate easily is real GDP. And while China is by far the largest cheaters, they are not the only ones. That is why we need to get EVERYBODY on-board. Otherwise, it is not fair.
Basically, this is the same problem that we have with corporate taxes. All these gov are playing as many games as they possibly can.
Americ
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we burn all the straw men that keep getting thrown at us? They're carbon-neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
If you burn the straw men all you'll get is hippies in a desert somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. And them hippies and hippie wannabes are some pollution motherfuckers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but maybe massive depopulation and fucking the economy is *what's needed to ensure we fucking survive as a species* you clod.
I've opted for the 'no children' route, personally. What have you done?
Re: (Score:3)
Like many on Slashdot, I've also opted for the "no children" route. Then again, you need a female partner for that so it's not like we opted into anything to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, fuck the planet if I can't have my SUV, I'm not going to drive a smaller car just 'cause it might let my kids live!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Bullshit. Using modern farming methods, hydroponics, aquaponics, etc, we can grow enough food to feed the entire planet, just in the borders of the US ALONE. So don't tell me that 8 billion people is unsustainable. That's horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Put it this way. We can grow citrus fruit ORGANICALLY in partially underground greenhouses...IN NEBRASKA with no pesticides and no petrochemical fertilizer.
So please don't tell me that modern farming, hydroponics and aquaponics aren't sustainable.
It merely exposes the depth of your ignorance.
Maybe in CALIFORNIA, things are grim. But the world is much more than California.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a great Nat Geo article about the Netherlands and the future (for everyone else) of farming.
https://www.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Credit where due: Exxon Weather.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... the Earth has trouble passing wind?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The advisory committee was scheduled to come to an end. Each person had a five-digit salary and they only met a few times for meetings lasting a few hours during Obama's second term. Their funding was not explicitly renewed.
Nothing of value was lost and Trump did not "disband" the committee. Trump was not involved at all.
We have talked about this at length on slashdot more than once. Leave it.
*as an aside, like many sated the last time this was discussed, I would looove to have a job paying me 30k to show u
Re: Hadley cells will move next (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always been a money grab - but when half of the top ten companies [wikipedia.org] get their $1.4 trillion a year from oil and gas, it's pretty obvious where the climate money trail really leads.
Re: Hadley cells will move next (Score:5, Insightful)
https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima... [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela lacks rusty old nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
More than 1/3 of co2 being emitted is from china.
Which is actually pretty impressive, don't you think?
They emit literally 1/3rd the CO2 per person as the United States, and have over 4 times the population.
In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames.
Well ya, they have the largest population on the planet shit-for-brains.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So do people capable of even rudimentary logic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
while America comes down.
So? What the hell is the point of that? We can criticize when we pass them.
Until then you're bitching about someone using less than half the amount of CO2 per person than we are.
The population size does not matter.
It absolutely fucking matters. We are all in this together, and China puts out a relatively small amount of CO2 for the amount of people they have. We are the offender, not them. Now could
Re: (Score:3)
China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc.
That is wrong.
America is the all time leader, probably 100 times as much as the rest of the world together, moron.
More Windy lies. (Score:4, Informative)
In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames
Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google [theguardian.com].
Why bother continuing the lie further? Are you really that stupid?
More Windy lies, don't you ever get sick? (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames
Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google [theguardian.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't mean it true, but it means it's trivially easy to find. Anyone with a functioning brain would realise while America was ans is the biggest consumers on the planet with the biggest industry causing a literal shit ton of CO2. China was a country of peasant farmers where millions of them were literally starving to death. What kind of fool claims China was the biggest emitter without at least taking a quick look for the facts?
Answer of course is Windy, lie first, check never.
Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.
Re: (Score:2)
You entitled apologist. Despite America's tiny decreases and China's slight increases, China is still per capita (only sane measurement) less than half your levels. Do you not realize China has over a billion extra people?
What China is doing to Venezuela? Are you insane?
Re: (Score:2)
Since the CO2 effect is cumulative, a fair comparison would take into account past emissions as well as current ones.
Stop with the lies Windy. (Score:4, Informative)
Three times now you have claimed this with nothing to back it up. where this [theguardian.com] shows clearly America was far far worse going back to 1900.
Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.
And that isn't even considering America is a quarter the size of China.
Re: (Score:2)
More than 1/3 of co2 being emitted is from china.
Yes. China is bad, right until you realise how many people live in China and that you entitled arseholes like to blame others while topping the list of emissions per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
I count less than 4 months to the flip-terms--er, mid-terms.
Re: (Score:2)
at the rate we are going, that may be an optimistic climate model.
The truly justifying part in attacking this sort of argument to me is that shits hitting the fan right now, in 5 years exponentially worse, and so on. You will live to see it because you are living now. So that becomes less and less of an excuse as time goes by.
Re: (Score:2)
I will be dead by the time I give a fuck.
Unless your expected continued life span is less than 10 years I wouldn't count on that. And even 10 years might be too optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be happy 'til your pool is full of refugees from areas that already had year-round summer and now have year-round deserts.
Re: (Score:2)
On what? Considering our superior success with the "War on drugs", the "War on poverty" and the "War on terror", we should probably declare a "War on climate change".
Or ... maybe not. All those wars got us was MORE of the thing we warred against...